If Saddam Had Stayed

[BeAChooser]

Let's remember that the entirety of BAC's arguments and counterarguments are going to take the following form.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What do you think Iraq and the world would now look like had the US not invaded in 2003?

What do you think it's relationship with terrorists would now be?

What would it's relationship with neighboring countries be?

What would now be our and the world's response to Iraq's behavior?

I'll simply note that you and all the others on the anti-war side of this thread failed to answer those questions. I wonder why?

 

[leftysergeant]

I'll simply note that you and all the others on the anti-war side of this thread failed to answer those questions. I wonder why?

Because they are stupid questions that cannot be answered with any precision, beyond the fact that the world would probably be better off if someone other than a simpleton and a band of poorly-educated war profiteers had conducted the operation.

(Intelligent management of the situation would probably not have involved an invasion.)

 

[joobz]

I'll simply note that you and all the others on the anti-war side of this thread failed to answer those questions. I wonder why?

Why do you wonder?
You gave the reason why anyone here hasn't answered it:
"Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened.."

Fact is there were no WMDs found, meaning the war was pointless. Fact is every time we attempt to control a regime in another country, it hurts us in the long run.

I hope things work out for the best now, but as you so clearly and accurately said: "Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened" if things were different.

 

[FireGarden]

I quoted the 911 Commission, too. Let me repeat what I noted (courtesy of wikipedia … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations ):

[...]
And let me point out that the 911 Commission report (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm ) also stated the following:

[...]
The article says this mural was found in an Iraqi military headquarters building. Note the date of the article ... March 26, 2003. The shock and awe attacks only began on March 20th. So do you really think that irked "Saddam supporters" found time to paint such daubs in that time frame? Did they paint this before the invasion but after Saddam invited in the inspectors? Unlikely. By the way, did you notice that the plane in the mural has the logo and color of Iraq airlines?

You see, FG, things aren't quite as black and white as you present. And that's the point of this whole thread. It's why your side of this debate can't answer the 6 questions I asked with any honesty or rationality.

[...]
You'd have to be blind not to connect these dots, FG.

And there are many, many more dots.

Absolutely, BAC. You're on to something here. You should e-mail all those US agencies and tell them to read what they've written and not taken account of. Clearly their conclusions must be wrong. Go convince them of this. Show them how to do their jobs.

No, that's why I quoted it. What you miss is that the reasons they failed to find a smoking gun is that a smoking gun implies certainty where none is possible, or that Iraq sanitized it's archives of the smoke and gun. And there plenty, as noted in this thread, to suggest that's what they did.

You see, BAC, that lack of certainty is why the intelligence agencies don't tie their colours to the claims you're making. They're professionals. So, like I said, convince them first. Then come back and try to convince me. There's a ton of evidence to analyse. Much of it provided by America's enemies probably with the intention to mislead. All of that was weighed up by the professionals and they made their decision: they won't claim what you claim.

Like I said, you folks demand *certainty* where there is none.

When people make claims skeptics will want it backed up by evidence. The problem isn't that we require certainty, the problem is that you claim more certainty than the evidence justifies.

Which perhaps is one reason your side of the political aisle consistently leaves messes that need cleaning up. That's the whole point of this thread. Maybe by not insisting on *certainty*, Bush avoided an even bigger mess than what we created/encountered. The left's insistance on certainty, may mean waiting till people are dying by the tens of thousands in the street (or in a subway tunnel) from a WMD attack before doing anything at all. And I don't think most people want that. Nor do they want the response that Obama and company seem to suggest when that finally happens ... of empathy training and sending in the clowns (I mean lawyers) rather than the military.

When there was evidence regarding Zarqawi's chemical weapons lab, who was it who waited? I know, you think that it was a good idea to wait that time. But you don't have a good reason to believe that.

As for which side of the political aisle I'm on... I don't think of myself as a lefty. I'm as disappointed by Obama as I was by Bush a couple of years into his term of office. Obama is not shaping up to be all that great. You might remember my "crusader Bush" avatar. If you can find me an avatar that pokes fun at Obama, I'll consider using it.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why do you wonder?
You gave the reason why anyone here hasn't answered it:
"Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened.."

Well gee, joobz, it looks like you might have another statement you can mischaracterize the intent and meaning of via a sig line.

Fact is there were no WMDs found

And yet you don't respond to the material I offered suggesting there were WMD and they were moved to Syria prior to the war.

And yet you simply dismiss as "stupid" the six questions that add to that concern.

You know what you remind me of, joobz?

http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich_head_in_sand.jpg

I hope things work out for the best now

But clearly Obama didn't. Because he said, even after it was clear the surge had worked, that even knowing the surge would work back when it was first implimented, he would have been against it.

 

[joobz]

Well gee, joobz, it looks like you might have another statement you can mischaracterize the intent and meaning of via a sig line.

It's not a mis characterization. It's just demonstrating your double standards when it comes to arguments.

Because of this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
and because you have absolutely no evidence to support those claims.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/And yet you simply dismiss as "stupid" the six questions that add to that concern.

I dismiss them on the same grounds you dismissed Darth Rotor's argument:
"Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened.."

Your double standards hurt your argument.

You know what you remind me of, joobz?

http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich_head_in_sand.jpg

YOur personal attacks hurt your argument.

 

[BeAChooser]

Absolutely, BAC. You're on to something here. You should e-mail all those US agencies and tell them to read what they've written and not taken account of. Clearly their conclusions must be wrong. Go convince them of this. Show them how to do their jobs.

LOL! This is the debating tactic I always encounter when someone realizes the facts don't support their side of the argument. They run, shouting "tell it to the authorities". As if the authorities don't have other motivations than the truth. Proving you're not a skeptic, FG. You really don't belong at JREF.

When there was evidence regarding Zarqawi's chemical weapons lab, who was it who waited? I know, you think that it was a good idea to wait that time. But you don't have a good reason to believe that.

Fine. You are entitled to your *opinion*. We didn't wait in Bin Laden's case, and look how that turned out just a few years later? Seems to me that history shows that bombing isn't a reliable means of stopping a terrorist organization, a reliable means of killing a specific terrorist, or a reliable means to stop the development and production of chemical/biological weapons by terrorists either. That's *my* opinion. And it's also my opinion that bombing Iraq at that critical time (2002) would certainly have led to an international crisis that might have derailed the other approach to dealing with the problem … an invasion of Iraq with International and Middle Eastern support, and boots on the ground.

Besides, we didn't really know how key al-Zarqawi was until after the invasion. That's when lots of materials about him was finally discovered. To demonstrate how little they really knew, consider the fact that Asia Times Onlike confirmed in February 2003 that practically nobody had heard of Zarqawi outside of Jordan. Clearly, the US government used him as a tool to get an invasion of Iraq, exaggerating what they knew about his threat potential (which might be part of the reason for not trying to kill him earlier). That's certainly possible. But was it wrong, when bombing was no guaranteed solution and might create a host of other problems that might preclude the one true solution? Why do you think the government still says Bin Laden is alive? And we only learned Zarqawi's real importance, and the real threat he posed, after the invasion. When plots like the Chemical Bomb attack in Amman (which started well before the invasion) finally came to light (perhaps as a direct consequence of the invasion). Plots that might have been successful were it it not for the invasion.

I'm as disappointed by Obama

Lots of leftists, especially the most hard core, are disappointed by Obama. But I'm glad to hear you aren't one of them. A leftist, I mean.

 

[FireGarden]

LOL! This is the debating tactic I always encounter when someone realizes the facts don't support their side of the argument. They run, shouting "tell it to the authorities". As if the authorities don't have other motivations than the truth. Proving you're not a skeptic, FG. You really don't belong at JREF.

Because I don't have the time to become an expert in everything -- I'm not a skeptic? Because I believe that the US authorities would be willing to illustrate/claim a firm link between al-Qaeda and Saddam if they could -- I'm not a skpetic? But, because you are willing to accept the possibility that the authorites might have "motivations other than the truth" -- you are a skeptic?

Or have I missed something?

Fine. You are entitled to your *opinion*. We didn't wait in Bin Laden's case, and look how that turned out just a few years later? Seems to me that history shows that bombing isn't a reliable means of stopping a terrorist organization, a reliable means of killing a specific terrorist, or a reliable means to stop the development and production of chemical/biological weapons by terrorists either. That's *my* opinion.

You don't think it would have set Zarqawi back, just a little bit?

And it's also my opinion that bombing Iraq at that critical time (2002) would certainly have led to an international crisis that might have derailed the other approach to dealing with the problem … an invasion of Iraq with International and Middle Eastern support, and boots on the ground.

Are you sure that Iraq was not bombed in 2002? I would guess that it was. Here's the result of a quick google:
http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2002.html

Are all of those made up?

 

[BeAChooser]

Because I believe that the US authorities would be willing to illustrate/claim a firm link between al-Qaeda and Saddam if they could -- I'm not a skpetic? ... Or have I missed something?

Have you thought about what the consequences would be if they did come forward and proved that WMD were moved to Syria before the war? Would that change anything in Iraq right now? Probably not. Would the folks who hated Bush and republicans now still hate them? Probably. They'd just find another excuse to shout.

But now the authorities would have to face the problem of what to do about Syria. They'd be under pressure from many to do something about it. How could they do nothing? So what would you suggest, then, FG?

You see, there could be a quite valid reason (in the eyes of authorities) why they wouldn't want to now come forward with everything they know about the pre-and post-war disposition of WMD and WMD materials in Iraq.

You don't think it would have set Zarqawi back, just a little bit?

Like bombing did Bin Laden?

Are you sure that Iraq was not bombed in 2002? I would guess that it was. Here's the result of a quick google:
http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2002.html

Yes, but that was bombing that the international community had already approved and become used to seeing. And it was bombing due to provocations by Saddam.

 

[joobz]

I was hoping BeAChooser would have been able to clearly explain why his argument in this thread isn't simply an example of special pleading, but it seems he has placed me on ignore
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6318455#post6318455

 

[FireGarden]

Have you thought about what the consequences would be if they did come forward and proved that WMD were moved to Syria before the war? Would that change anything in Iraq right now? Probably not. Would the folks who hated Bush and republicans now still hate them? Probably. They'd just find another excuse to shout.

How many people do you think are willing to go along with brushing this under the carpet?

But now the authorities would have to face the problem of what to do about Syria. They'd be under pressure from many to do something about it. How could they do nothing? So what would you suggest, then, FG?

You think they'd brush it under the carpet, then? Do you criticise Bush for being silent? Or has been kept out of the loop on this? What about Cheney?

You see, there could be a quite valid reason (in the eyes of authorities) why they wouldn't want to now come forward with everything they know about the pre-and post-war disposition of WMD and WMD materials in Iraq.

No I don't see it that way. The reason you have given is a self-serving, hide-our-mistake type of reason. And I don't think many in the intelligence community would go along with it. Some of them actually want to keep America safe.

Like bombing did Bin Laden?

Let's be clear now... Are you claiming that being bombed is not a set back?

Yes, but that was bombing that the international community had already approved and become used to seeing. And it was bombing due to provocations by Saddam.

This makes no sense now, BAC. You said that bombing Iraq in 2002 would have "derailed" the war effort. Now you've moved away from that and are claiming that bombing the chemical weapons factory of an al-Qaeda agent would have been less acceptable than bombing Iraq -- when the world had already accepted that America would wage war against al-Qaeda.

Sorry, BAC. Not convincing.

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
But now the authorities would have to face the problem of what to do about Syria. They'd be under pressure from many to do something about it. How could they do nothing? So what would you suggest, then, FG?

You think they'd brush it under the carpet, then? Do you criticise Bush for being silent? Or has been kept out of the loop on this? What about Cheney?

Why don't you answer the question I asked, FG? What would you suggest they have done if they had evidence that WMD and/or critical WMD materials had been moved to Syria before, during or after the invasion of Iraq? Would you suggest they invade Syria and recover those WMD weapons and materials now? Surely you know that there would have been considerable pressure to do that if such evidence had been revealed. Even now there would be pressure to DEMAND that Syria turn over those items. And if they didn't, what would you do then, FG? Hmmmmmm?

The reason you have given is a self-serving, hide-our-mistake type of reason.

What "mistake" are you referring to, FG? How was the Bush administration supposed to have stopped Iraq from moving WMD into Syria before or even during the invasion? Or even after it?

And I don't think many in the intelligence community would go along with it. Some of them actually want to keep America safe.

Ah … so you are claiming the mistake is to let Syria retain any WMD that were smuggled there before, during or after the invasion. So I take it you are in the camp that would now be DEMANDING we invade Syria if they won't turn over the WMD. Would you be out demonstrating in the streets? And are you prepared for the consequences if we did invade Syria? You realize that unlike Iraq in 2003 (fortunately), Syria does have WMD and the means to deliver it over long distances. Are you prepared for the consequences? Hmmmmmm?

Let's be clear now... Are you claiming that being bombed is not a set back?

Did bombing bin Laden's camp in 1998 stop bin Laden from destroying the WTC towers in 2001, just 3 years later? If bombing was a set back, it wasn't much of one.

You said that bombing Iraq in 2002 would have "derailed" the war effort. Now you've moved away from that and are claiming that bombing the chemical weapons factory of an al-Qaeda agent would have been less acceptable than bombing Iraq -- when the world had already accepted that America would wage war against al-Qaeda.

I haven't moved away from anything. When I said bombing Iraq in 2002 *might* derail an invasion, I was clearly talking about the Northern Camps at the time. And I'll stand by that concern. If you misinterpreted that to think I was including bombing of Saddam's air defense system as a result of attacks on our aircraft, I can't help that. Nor can I help if you happen to think the two are remotely comparable in the effect they might have had on international support for an invasion of Iraq.

 

[joobz]

Why don't you answer the question I asked, FG? What would you suggest they have done if they had evidence that WMD and/or critical WMD materials had been moved to Syria before, during or after the invasion of Iraq? Would you suggest they invade Syria and recover those WMD weapons and materials now? Surely you know that there would have been considerable pressure to do that if such evidence had been revealed. Even now there would be pressure to DEMAND that Syria turn over those items. And if they didn't, what would you do then, FG? Hmmmmmm?

A lot of speculation again.


I find it funny that you support this syria argument so well.
Afterall, if it is true, that would mean that the Iraq war wasn't started on a lie, but rather failed miserably at its primary goal (Eliminating WMD).

 

[FireGarden]

A lot of speculation again.


I find it funny that you support this syria argument so well.
Afterall, if it is true, that would mean that the Iraq war wasn't started on a lie, but rather failed miserably at its primary goal (Eliminating WMD).

And what does it say about the Bush admin's resolve to protect America? Doesn't seem to be all that strong.

I liked this line:

Ah … so you are claiming the mistake is to let Syria retain any WMD that were smuggled there before, during or after the invasion. So I take it you are in the camp that would now be DEMANDING we invade Syria if they won't turn over the WMD. Would you be out demonstrating in the streets? And are you prepared for the consequences if we did invade Syria? You realize that unlike Iraq in 2003 (fortunately), Syria does have WMD and the means to deliver it over long distances. Are you prepared for the consequences? Hmmmmmm?

I don't think Syria should be attacked. I don't think Iraq should have been attacked -- even if it did have WMDs. In fact, if you want me to join the CT theorising, then I would say that if I had been Hans Blix I would have fabricated evidence of WMDs in order to delay the war for a few years -- because I do not believe that Bush and Cheney would have invaded if they genuinely thought that Iraq had WMDs. Pity Blix didn't think to do that.

I haven't moved away from anything. When I said bombing Iraq in 2002 *might* derail an invasion, I was clearly talking about the Northern Camps at the time. And I'll stand by that concern. If you misinterpreted that to think I was including bombing of Saddam's air defense system as a result of attacks on our aircraft, I can't help that. Nor can I help if you happen to think the two are remotely comparable in the effect they might have had on international support for an invasion of Iraq.

You've moved to a more untenable position of arguing that an attack upon an al-Qaeda chemical weapons factory would have been less acceptable than the bombings of Iraq which took place a more than monthly basis.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't think Syria should be attacked. I don't think Iraq should have been attacked -- even if it did have WMDs.

Then I'm not sure what you meant by the statement

And I don't think many in the intelligence community would go along with it. Some of them actually want to keep America safe.

because that seems to imply it's your view that removing Iraqi WMD from Syria would have been necessary to "keep America safe." Or do you have some other approach in mind, were that the case?

because I do not believe that Bush and Cheney would have invaded if they genuinely thought that Iraq had WMDs.

Bush Sr and Cheney (then Secretary of Defence) invaded Iraq in 1991 knowing full well that Iraq had WMD. Not sure I buy your theory, FG.

You've moved to a more untenable position of arguing that an attack upon an al-Qaeda chemical weapons factory would have been less acceptable than the bombings of Iraq which took place a more than monthly basis.

I don't see the untenability of my argument. The bombings that were taking place on a monthly basis against missle sites were routine at the time. Even Saddam had gotten accustomed to them. There was no way to make new political hay of them.

Whereas a sudden, massive bombing in Northern Iraq might have upset a number of countries. And look at the international problems that Clinton's bombing of an "aspirin" factory in Sudan created. The government of Sudan demanded an apology. Libya condemned the US and supported Sudan. Pakistan supported Sudan. Russia called the US action "dishonorable". And all it would have taken was one negative vote in the UN security council to have prevented the unanimous vote that Bush later used to justify the invasion.

 

[FireGarden]

Bush Sr and Cheney (then Secretary of Defence) invaded Iraq in 1991 knowing full well that Iraq had WMD. Not sure I buy your theory, FG.

But it's the same theory you implied with your question: "Would you be out demonstrating in the streets? And are you prepared for the consequences if we did invade Syria? You realize that unlike Iraq in 2003 (fortunately), Syria does have WMD and the means to deliver it over long distances. Are you prepared for the consequences? Hmmmmmm?"

Bush, you say, did the sensible thing when Iraq 'hid its WMD in Syria'. He should have done the sensible thing when Iraq had WMD -- he should have brushed all the evidence under the carpet (where only people like you can see it) and convinced the intelligence community to do the same. That's what you think is sensible, isn't it?

And, actually, America didn't go all out against Iraq in 1991. They left Saddam in power and they never backed him into a corner. If Saddam had seen tanks in Baghdad in 1991, he may well have launched a WMD attack. What would he have had to lose?

I don't see the untenability of my argument. The bombings that were taking place on a monthly basis against missle sites were routine at the time. Even Saddam had gotten accustomed to them. There was no way to make new political hay of them.

A bombing of Zarqawi's factory didn't need to be any bigger than any of the other bombings. And it would have been a bombing against an enemy America had already declared war upon -- with the full support of most of the world.

And there were other options to bombing the facility.

Whereas a sudden, massive bombing in Northern Iraq might have upset a number of countries. And look at the international problems that Clinton's bombing of an "aspirin" factory in Sudan created. The government of Sudan demanded an apology. Libya condemned the US and supported Sudan. Pakistan supported Sudan. Russia called the US action "dishonorable". And all it would have taken was one negative vote in the UN security council to have prevented the unanimous vote that Bush later used to justify the invasion.

But Clinton bombed what he thought was a chemical weapons factory. I'm not sure what compensation has been paid for the mistake.

Bush was told about a chemical weapons lab and left it alone. He didn't bomb it, he didn't have inspectors sent to it. He didn't even raise the matter at the UN demanding that action be taken. He left it alone until the war started.

 

[BeAChooser]

Sorry, FG, but I'm still curious what you meant by the sentence "Some of them actually want to keep America safe"?

But it's the same theory you implied with your question: "Would you be out demonstrating in the streets? And are you prepared for the consequences if we did invade Syria? You realize that unlike Iraq in 2003 (fortunately), Syria does have WMD and the means to deliver it over long distances. Are you prepared for the consequences? Hmmmmmm?"

Except there are four very important differences. One is the number and sophistication of Iraq's WMD arsenal in 1991, compared to what Syria was known to have had in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. The second is the proximity of the country to Israel. The third is the size of our military in 2003, compared to what it was in 1991 at the height of the Cold War. And the fourth is the availability of good forward bases with which to attack Iraq in 1991, compared to Syria ... at least in 2003.

Back in 1991, just prior to the war, some intelligence indicated the number of missiles with WMD warheads in Iraq's arsenal was on the order of 150 relatively crude missiles (compared to Syria's in 2003). Other intelligence (such as an interview with an Iraqi engineer who claimed to have worked on Iraq's missile programs) indicated the threat of WMD missiles was actually nill at the time. And a CIA report in 1991 indicated that while Iraq might have chemical warheads for missiles, it had not mastered the fuse technology needed to properly detonate them. And as things turned out, all in all, Iraq fired only about 90 Scud missiles during the war, all of which turned out to be conventionally armed. After the war, there was no clear evidence that any chemical or biologically armed missile had even been available at the time.

Syria, in 2003, on the other hand, was reliably known to have several hundred SCUD and short range ballistic missiles, and chemical warheads for a portion of that arsenal. There was fear that cruise missiles might even have been equipped with chemical warheads at the time. In July 2003, the Israelis claimed that Syria had missiles with VX nerve agent. In September 2003, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, said Syria had a "stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles, and has engaged in the research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents such as VX." In May 2004, the Bush administration issued an Executive Order stating that Syria possessed "one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities." And Syria has continued to expand it's arsenal since, with not only locally developed missile technology, but missiles from North Korea, Russia and now Iran. In fact, western intelligence agencies have assessed that Syria has now deployed 1000 Scud C and D missiles in the Bekaa Valley alone. And you think there is no difference between that threat and the one we faced back in 1991? Really?

A bombing of Zarqawi's factory didn't need to be any bigger than any of the other bombings.

And you know this for a fact?

And you are still avoiding the issue of whether bombing would have worked. It didn't work in bin Laden's case. Why would it in this case?

And there were other options to bombing the facility.

Such as?

But Clinton bombed what he thought was a chemical weapons factory. I'm not sure what compensation has been paid for the mistake.

Bush was told about a chemical weapons lab and left it alone.

Perhaps he didn't want to have to pay out more compensation because of another mistake? Repeat Clinton's mistake … both at the aspirin factory and in Afghanistan in a single bombing?

He left it alone until the war started.

Perhaps he hoped to catch them by surprise? If we didn't, perhaps that's because of the long delay in getting the war underway and the failure of Turkey to allow a front early in the conflict?

 

[leftysergeant]

Sorry, FG, but I'm still curious what you meant by the sentence "Some of them actually want to keep America safe"?

People who start wars on brain-dead logic endanger America and we need to protest when some idot rties to convince us we need to do something stupid.

And the fourth is the availability of good forward bases with which to attack Iraq in 1991, compared to Syria ... at least in 2003.

So you admit that occupying Iraq was just a means of having a forward operating base in the Middle East.

In September 2003, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, said Syria had a "stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles, and has engaged in the research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents such as VX." In May 2004, the Bush administration issued an Executive Order stating that Syria possessed "one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities."

Ten yard penalty for citing a known sociopathic nutjob intent on starting a war.

And you are still avoiding the issue of whether bombing would have worked. It didn't work in bin Laden's case. Why would it in this case?

Bin Laden is a moving target. Our military, even with an idiot like Rummy running the show, can hit a chemical plant.

Perhaps he hoped to catch them by surprise? If we didn't, perhaps that's because of the long delay in getting the war underway and the failure of Turkey to allow a front early in the conflict?

You are assuming that the clowns running the war planning were actually competent strategists. Why do you make such idiotic assumptions?

 

[dc1971]

I quoted the 911 Commission, too.

And there is considerable evidence that Ansar al Islam was part of al-Qaeda, thus linking Iraq to al-Qaeda. US and European governments, Kurdish security officials, and journalists all found evidence of links between Ansar al Islam and al-Qaeda. For example, the NYTimes discovered documents in an al-Qaeda guest house that discussed the creation of an "Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic Brigade" just weeks before the formation of Ansar al Islam. And Ansar al Islam members that the PUK captured confessed to having trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

And let me point out that the 911 Commission report

… friendly connections.

At Salman Pak, Marines found, suicide vests wrapped in plastic ready for shipment (to whom?).

You see, FG, things aren't quite as black and white as you present. And that's the point of this whole thread. It's why your side of this debate can't answer the 6 questions I asked with any honesty or rationality.

And I can quote the Senate Intelligence Committee too.

"Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda - as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

Or like a formerly secret memo written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to several senators in October of 2003 which stated, among other things, that:

Maybe by not insisting on *certainty*, Bush avoided an even bigger mess than what we created/encountered. The left's insistance on certainty, may mean waiting till people are dying by the tens of thousands in the street (or in a subway tunnel) from a WMD attack before doing anything at all. And I don't think most people want that. Nor do they want the response that Obama and company seem to suggest when that finally happens ... of empathy training and sending in the clowns (I mean lawyers) rather than the military.

I had to cut a lot out of that quote, BAC, because WOW you're taking up a lot of space on this board!! Let some other people provide to the discussion? Please?

 

[dc1971]

Well there's your mistake. Thinking it was just a "civil war".

What was it then? A wet noodle contest?